Re: ATA / IDE Controller for Blade 1000 / 2000


"Daniel Rock" <v200633@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ebr2gu$cic$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andreas Wacknitz <A.Wacknitz@xxxxxx> wrote:
Do you know what you are talking about? Three months ago I had a
hard disk failure at the office. I (and thus the company I am working
for)
lost most of the work of one day and another day for re-installing all
the
needed software on a new drive.
The drive was a one year old SATA drive. So, the company saved approx.
150?
for the drive and paid this savings with 2 developer days (approx.
1000?).
I am talking about workstations and not home PCs.

So you are implying that SCSI drives NEVER fail? With a sampling of one
you
conclude the reliability of every SCSI drive vs. every SATA drive.

If data is important, why don't you mirror?
Because it is more expensive. A decent hardware RAID costs much more than
200 EUROS.
I made the decision deberately. It's an optimisation problem. Of course I
could spend great
amounts of money in order to gain the maximum possible reliability. I will
do this only if I think
that my data is important enough to spend the money.


Hint: SCSI drives also fail, some even in the first year of operation.
Your
one-point-sample proves nothing.
I draw conclusions from my personal experiences and the technical
specifications of the manufacturers.
That's all.
Hint: According to the technical specifications the likelyness of a failure
is higher for the cheaper SATA drives.


BTW: Interesting currency: ???


Furthermore I have decided for myself that my personal data and my
spare
time is worth more than the difference between a cheap SATA drive and a
more
expensive SCSI drive. Even if the SCSI drive promises just a little bit
more
reliability.

There are SATA drives and there are SATA drives. Some vendors offer
"enterprise level" SATA disks:
- Seagate: NL35 series / Barracuda ES series
- WD: Raptor / RE / RE2
Yes, of course I know of them. These kind of disks deliver a similar amount
of reliability like the
enterprise SCSI drives - at a similar amount of cost. So, what's your point?


these series have a MTBF of 1.2 Mio hours and are ready for 24x7
operation.
No, the NL35 has an MTBF of 1 mio hours according to Seagate. And a short
search for prices
shows that the NL35 series drives are more expensive than their desktop
counterparts - at least in Germany.
At least they are a lot cheaper than enterprise SCSI drives but also have
other technical specifications.


And sometimes they are even cheaper than their desktop counterparts - and
have (Western Digital) a longer warranty (5 years vs. 1 year desktop
drives).
Yes, but you are adding pro arguments of different vendors and models.
That's not a realistic comparison. Eg. the WD Raptors aren't cheaper than
their desktop
counterpars (in fact there aren't any I know of) and cost like similar SCSI
drives.

Andreas


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SCSI vs SATA
    ... You should check out the Maxtor RAPTOR drives. ... I had been using Ultra-160 SCSI drives on ... > for some inexpensive SATA drives. ... Spec's for the drive had access time at 9.0 ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • SCSI vs SATA
    ... After years of using primarily SCSI drives, I finally decided to move on ... for some inexpensive SATA drives. ... Spec's for the drive had access time at 9.0 ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • RE: SCSI vs SATA
    ... I think of SATA as the cheap SCSI. ... The drives are fast, ... The main advantage of the SCSI drives is the ... Spec's for the drive had access time at 9.0 ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Dynamic disk problem
    ... the new SATA drives set as first in the boot sequence. ... SATA drives will cause the BIOS to set the IDE drives as first. ... > disks to basic prior to reinstall Windows. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: OS (Reliability,Security,Performance,Cost,..) Comparison And Hardware Reliability
    ... >> SCSI drives) without rebooting, though the rebooting is the simple way ... hard-compiled into the kernel that certain SCSI IDs were disks, ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc)
Loading